Customer Reviews

Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The author contends that the media discovery in the 1990s of rural militia and even the Oklahoma City bombing should not be too surprising because they follow in a long line of rural radicalism. She considers rural radicalism as a distinct phenomenon because of the nature of rural life itself. Rural residents, especially the common folk, often endure difficult and even harsh lives. Urbanization, modernization, consumerism, and the rise of huge business interests and bureaucratic government have impacted or have been felt to unduly impact rural residents. Rural people have generally turned inward toward their local communities for support in the face of difficulties. But at different periods in our history these small communities have erupted, often extra-legally, to contend with these various hated forces.

The author distinguishes between producer radicalism and vigilantism. The former category is much concerned with economic issues from unfair land laws and practices, distant and unresponsive legislatures, burdensome taxation, judicial favoring of creditors, and monopolistic businesses, especially railroads. The Populists of the late 1800s are the prime example of producer radicals. Vigilantism shares some of these same concerns, but is slanted towards external forces or people who are seen to be a threat to a closed way of life. In some cases, as in pre-revolutionary North Carolina, vigilantes have operated against criminal elements in the absence of effective law enforcement but have been far more likely to identify and inflict harm on scapegoats along racial, ethnic, religious, and political lines. The KKK is perhaps the foremost example of a vigilante group.

The author trys to convince that producer radicalism and vigilantism are two sides of the same coin. This reviewer does not find that the case is made. The Populists had legitimate complaints and found responsible ways of expressing them. They did not hate the federal government, even advocating for the nationalization of some industries. Some of their platform was adopted during the Progressive Era. Vigilantes in lieu of operating from any careful analysis of their situation seem to cling to wild conspiracy theories usually involving the federal government and then proceed to select vulnerable victims to assuage their frustrations. These are not the virtuous citizens of producer radicalism.

The book is a very good survey of the various rural radical groups through our nation's history. While I do not agree with a central tenet of the book, maybe others would. In any event the book is quite worthwhile.

Catherine Mcnicol Stock's treatise on agrarian radicalism is not exactly the book I thought I was buying, but I discovered that it is an excellent addition to rural history as well as the history of radicalism in America. This book was written in response to the shocking revelations in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an attempt to place rural, white male radicalism in context. Her thesis states that this radicalism and violence is not new, going back as far as 1676. She reconciles seemingly paradoxical elements: rural producers, right-wing, left-wing, and vigilantes. This may seem contradictory, but it shouldn't in light of a long history of anti-government protest and intractable problems running counter to the dominant American culture.

One interesting and disturbing example Stock provides is that of Jim Jenkins of Minnesota. He killed the banker who had foreclosed on him in the desperate agricultural times of the early 1980s. The rights of farmers have been sacrosanct in this country, but unseen economic and political forces have driven some to desperation.

I agree with "One Man's View" that many producer radicals, like the Populists, were not vigilantes. I, too am a student of Populism, and I assert that many were inclusive, egalitarian for their time, indeed "virtuous." However, Stock's thesis is still valid; it is conceivable in radical ideology to be both a producer and a vigilante.

I recommend this work, but it must be carefully read as not to be misinterpreted. This ground has been trod by academia before, but I don't remember this particular thesis. I am sure that this filled a need at the time of its publication; explaining murderous rage does not excuse it. Anyone can still learn from this impressive scholarship. It isn't so timely now, but it isn't antiquated. The emotional jolt from that time has ebbed, but as history has shown, this is an American tradition. Sometimes the politics of hope and the politics of hate are hard to differentiate.

Early on in Rural Radicals, author Catherine McNichol Stock suggest that most Americans have never seen a real working farm. After reading her book, I would submit that neither has she. In Stock's eyes, all farmers do is plot evil against the government and want to blow up its buildings and kill its agents. She uses about 176 pages to explain her position. Unfortunately her arguments are not totally convincing.

The book is divided into three chapters, the first gives a historical background of rural discontent. This is also her weakest chapter by far. Stock does not really explain rural radicalism but rather gives examples of farmers throughout American history taking matters into their own hands when they feel they have no other choice. She describes colonial events like Bacon's Rebellion and the Paxton Boys, then skips ahead to Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. There is no continuity between her different subjects, they all just blend into one large radical event. SHe continues on to the Populists and the Progressives, leaving behind nearly a century of time. She then makes her way to the New Deal and the modern era of Timothy McVeigh.

She describes the events but never explains the mindset of farmers and what causes them to become radical. There is no analysis of the frontier mentality or the relationship between the idealism of the time as it is applied to their lives by the individual farmers.

Her next two chapters are more thematic in approach and here is where her argument becomes more persuasive, but it still remains superficial at best. She describes the farm crises of the 1960s through the 1980s and how farmers first drove to Washington to protest prices and conditions but she never traces the onset of farm subsidies as a response to these complaints. She does not explain how such welfare programs actually make people dependent on the federal government instead of independent. She talks little of banking policies and land prices that result in higher taxes or the cost of financing farm implements. Each of these is a daily reality to farmers and their struggle for independence.

Stock prefers the anecdotal approach of describing individual events of murders, bombings, shootings, standoffs and other similar situations. She describes individuals who take matters into their own hands and blame Jews and other conspirators for all of their ails. These make for a good story but miss the point in explaining how these individuals were brought to their present state. What general trends facing all farmers lead certain marginal individuals to act violently? Stock never really explains anythig to help the reader gain understanding towards her original thesis. She also misses the point that rural radicals are often an offshoot of urban radicals. This is what led to the American Revolution. The Progressive movement was not limited to the farms.

The relationship between rural America and its political culture is best described by William Appleman Williams in the Roots of the Modern American Empire. Progressivism is best described by Walter Nugent. Look to these other works for a detailed explanation of the issues Stock introduces. Stock's book is weak and uninspiring. If you are a farmer or from rural America, it may either be downright offensive or comedic.

I thought that this book was pretty awful. Its coverage was superficial and obtuse at best. The author seemed to have very little understanding of rural life and even less comprehension of the sources of Agrarian protest. Her chapter on Populism was filled with factual errors and was just plain wrong.

This book came out in 1996 following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The book is a joke and relies on every stereotype imaginable to portray what the author calls "rural radicals" in a negative light. The author obviously is of the opinion that big government, big business, multinational corporations, and elitist East Coast liberals are our friends and wish only the best for us. It is inconceivable to her how anyone could possibly think otherwise. Further, she is hopelessly entrenched in the ridiculous partisan "Democrat versus Republican", "right versus left" bickering and thus finds it impossible to classify or understand any political movement that doesn't fall into the modern day categories of "right" (i.e. "Republican") and "left" (i.e. "Democrat"). The author's understanding of rural people is ludicrously stereotyped and makes me wonder if she has any experience with such people at all. For example we are treated to such gaffes as collecting Nazi paraphernalia is a "conservative activity", "most Americans regard rural America as flyover country" (That's news to me. Makes me think the author should step out of the Ivory Tower and associate with some people outside of her small coterie of elite university friends.), and "most Iowans had probably never seen a black person" (Makes me wonder if the author herself has ever seen a black person.) Perhaps most despicable of all though are some of the allegations she engages in. For example, she goes out of her way to smear Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, with the anti-semite label. Now I certainly am no fan of Welch, but fair is fair. Throughout his life Welch went out of his way to distance himself from anti-semitism and specifically would not allow it to enter his organization. The author's basis for this smear is solely that he apparently had a copy of the _Protocols_ in his personal library. By that standard, she herself is likely an "anti-semite" because she probably possesses such literature in her own library that she used to write this book. Further, by that standard anyone who possesses a copy of Karl Marx is a communist. We can easily see where such thinking leads. This is her only evidence for the "anti-semite" slur against Welch. This book is terrible and rests on countless misunderstandings that only serve to drive a deeper wedge between those in power and those who are powerless. As such, the book can only be profitably read as a parody of the condescension of elite politically correct East Coast Establishment hacks for populist America. We know they hate us. Books like this only confirm that hate.

This book reads as easy as fiction. It's an excellent study for anyone who wants to add a mega dose of reality to what they didn't learn in school. And it adds keen perspective to today's and tomorrow's news stories about radicalism in the United States. It's a must for the serious reader's bookshelf.